Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs BMW X3 & X5 2007 BMW X3
76 messages, Last post on Apr 27, 2007 at 10:13 PM
You are in the BMW X3 & X5 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: drjcool1 (Dec 31, 2006 1:01 pm) #2 The compression ratio of the engine is the reason for the Premium fuel requirement. The engine management computer will retard the spark to somewhat compensate for the pre-ignition that would happen if you use regular. The result of this compensation is a reduction of power and gas mileage. If your mission is to spend more money, have lower power and run "close to the edge" of pre-ignition (which left unchecked would damage your engine -- but I said "close" to the edge), then go with regular. This will cost about $3 or $4 per tankful MORE if you go the way the car was built (i.e., you use premium.) Regular gas has "less engergy" as far as this engine is concerned. So while it may cost a few dollars more to fill it up with Premium, it is a "false economy" to use regular. I would take another X3 out for a test drive re the hesitattion issue. Then make certain you bring your concern to the HEAD technical person the one with all the certificates on the wall. . . . I did make an assumption: you went with the autotrans. Not that that makes you a bad person. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: wls1 (Dec 31, 2006 6:46 am) This is not meant to spark a debate on all season tires vs summer only vs winter vs snow tires. Some folks think all season tires a effectively "no season tires." The BMW X3 comes with H rated (not UHP tires that is) all seasons. They are designed for, apparently, low noise and long treadwear -- then they are designed to withstand the cold temps without going all brittle on you. They offer slightly more traction "capability" in the snow, none, as far as I can tell, on ice (but this is not exactly new news, eh?) An X3 in moderate snow areas with the sport package will be fine. It would be better, of course, if it had dedicated "winter" and "summer" tires. Most folks "slide by" with all season tires year round. The sport package is a nice addition to this car. I assume up state NY offers road clearing services to the taxpayers? If so, the times you would wish for winter tires may be very limited indeed. If you are concerned about this, however, you may consider 4 wheels with high performance winter tires perhaps of a -0 (minus zero) configuration or even a -1 (minus one) configuraion. In the former case the wheel size stays at 18", in the latter it drops to 17" -- in both cases the tread width is reduced and the sidewall will grow taller. If this concept is a consideration, please check out one of the on line retailers (Tirerack leaps to mind) for their explanation of the what when and why of "minus" sizing for winter. |
|
|
Replying to: drjcool1 (Dec 31, 2006 1:01 pm) Answer #2 - YES, YES, YES, you can use regular. Under full-throttle acceleration or if you hold the engine near the hp/torque peaks up around 6,000 rpms, you MIGHT notice a performance difference. In typical driving, it's imperceptible. As for the suggestion that you'll spend more on regular because you'll get worse fuel economy, I'd say "prove it." My own experience is that there's a negligible difference between mileage with 87 and 93 octane tanks. (What IS very noticeable is the difference between tanks where my wife does most of the driving and tanks where I do most of the driving; driving style matters far more than octane.) All that being said, more often than not, we'll put 93 in the tank. Happy New Year to you, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jrynn (Jan 03, 2007 4:39 pm) If you are leasing the car and you plan to ditch it before 50,000 miles, and I guess you could use regular and let the next guy live with whatever consequences there may be. Ask the techs, write a letter or email to the mfgr, look into this as independently as possible. Premium gas requirements don't impress me and generally most people wouldn't know. Why require it then? The reason for doing this is what? To make your customers pay for something that is not needed? Over a thousand gallons the difference would typically be $200. This amount is hardly a show stopper at least at this price point. I would be happy to use mid grade or regular, but I have read enough and talked to the techs enough to believe everyone couldn't all buy into an elaborate lie. Here's a suggestion, why don't we all lobby BMW to quit claiming we need premium even if it is just to save a few bucks? I would never urge someone to NOT follow the mfgr's published specs for fuel, oil, or any other fluids for that matter. It may seem OK to use regular, but most of the evidence and comments from the pros suggest that the mfgr's guidance should be heeded.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jan 03, 2007 7:10 pm) The words BMW chooses to use are significant. There is a difference between "recommend" and "require," and BMW's engineers and lawyers are smart enough to understand that difference. So when they write in the 2006 X3 Driver's Reference Guide that the use of 91 octane is "recommended" you should take that at face value. BMW -- like many companies -- tends to go WAY overboard in providing warnings in its product material so it doesn't have to deal with unhappy customers. The X3 manual even warns owners: "Do not remove the covers [of the LED's], and never stare into the unfiltered light for several hours, as irritation of the retina could result." Now, Mark, in the real world, which do you think would be the more likely problem? Owners filling up with 87 octane -- which you suggest will cause engine damage -- and insisting on expensive replacements under warranty? Or owners disassembling their dashboards and staring "into the unfiltered light for "several hours"? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Mark, but reasonable people will appreciate that that BMW's engineers and lawyers know their product better than you do. Bottom line, THEY don't "require" the use of premium unleaded fuel. ***** And if you want yet more 'expert' opinion, consider what the service manager of one of the east coast's largest Mercedes dealerships told the Washington Post back not too long ago: "It's not going to hurt anything," said Peter Gregori, service manager for EuroMotorcars, a Mercedes-Benz dealer in Bethesda. In fact, Gregori has been using regular gas in one of his own Mercedes cars for two years, and "it's perfect," he said .... Among cars that come in for service, Gregori said, he can't tell which have been sipping premium." And the article concluded: "Automotive experts say using regular gas in most vehicles does no damage and makes no discernible difference in performance. Cars made in the past 15 years have such highly refined computer controls that the engine will adjust to the grade of octane in the gasoline, even in cars sold as requiring premium gasoline. Some drivers -- in some cars under some driving conditions -- may notice a drop in horsepower, but for most people behind the wheel, it wouldn't be enough to notice, the experts say." ***** And, finally, Mark, take a deep breath, because no one but you has suggested that the "recommendation" that drivers use premium is, as you put it in your post, an "elaborate lie." The use of 91 octane fuel permits manufacturers to achieve and, more importantly, report in brochures, higher peak horsepower and peak torque numbers, which matters ENORMOUSLY in marketing. Take a look for example, at the footnotes in the performance specifications on the Lexus website for any sedan. "Ratings achieved using the required premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher. If premium fuel is not used, performance will decrease."
|
|
|
Replying to: jrynn (Jan 04, 2007 1:59 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: davidc1 (Jan 05, 2007 12:05 pm) Really? 
|
|
|
Replying to: bodble2 (Jan 05, 2007 3:44 pm) shipo, "What about fuel types & gas mileage?" #228, 9 May 2006 5:36 pm It is funny you never see "regular gas required" in the manuals. Skip back up about 10 posts above the one linked for the start of that thread, including Shifty's great quote that there's a "common misconception that premium fuel is some kind of "doggie treat" for your car." |
|
|
Replying to: bodble2 (Jan 05, 2007 3:44 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: davidc1 (Jan 05, 2007 7:54 pm) The new 2007 Chrysler 300 specifies MID grade and says, essentially, don't waste your money on Premium. The words used include what amounts to a suggestion that "while using regular is OK, "optimum" performance is realized with mid grade." Several of my Audis actually rated power and mileage on the octane. This provided the data points to determine the validity of the phrase "false economy." Lawyers, probably, determine the wording used, hence the word REQUIRED is seldom used unless it has been determined that warranty claims will offset the law suits or better said potential law suits. I found several (more than two) websites that had as their number one "rule" -- "follow the mfgr's recommendation." I found many (more than five) websites that did claim using Regular in a car designed for Premium would NOT technically damage the engine, but several of these did hint at the loss of power and reduced MPG's that go hand in hand with this practice. In the spirit of full disclosure, I could not find any data that said the full amount of the price difference was consumed by the loss of power and reduced miles per gallon such behavior engenders. Yet, virtually all of the data says the main reason a car is said to have premium fuel recommended is that it has a compression ratio that will lead to pre-ignition (which is harmful) -- and that the ping is controlled by retarding the spark, meaning the spark happens earlier in the compression cycle, increasing pollution and decreasing mileage AND performance. Apparently the advent of electronic controls have offset pre-ignition's potential damage. But the issue that this causes is lower power than "one was used to" and what happens (or probably happens) is one's right foot presses further downward exacerbating this reduction in both pre-ignition and power. It would be my "request" for the mfgs to explicitly define power and mpg consequences of using regular, mid-grade and premium and let us all decide. In the mean time, without sufficient information, I would urge all drivers to "do what the manual" says (regardless of the "r" word -- require or recommend, that is.) The authors who appear to understand the physics and the chemistry say "you can use regular, but -- here are the consequences." At twenty gallons per week per car the difference in cost per gallon is $200 per year, the difference in opportunity cost appears to be less than that; and, some argue is a negative number. There appears to be a "secret handshake" we are all (or at least some of us) looking for and that is, you can buy a BMW or an Audi and despite the mfg's recommendations use regular gas without any consequences. If this is really true, I would imagine once enough of us figure it out, there will be at least the hint of a class action, so we "won't get fooled again." I suspect there is something to it more than "ego" -- for this kind of false requirement would, once it got out, also be cause for customer retailiation. At $200 per year per car, since 1973 (the year I had to buy my own gas), hmm, let's see, 34 years  $200 per year approximately, carry the five -- well that's $6400 that someone owes me.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs BMW X3 & X5 2007 BMW X3
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 BMW X3
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
